The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 7 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote
Open accessAbstract
When conducting exhaustive searches for systematic reviews, information professionals search multiple databases with overlapping content [1][2][3][4].They typically remove duplicate records to reduce the reviewers' workload associated with screening titles and abstracts; sometimes the reviewers remove the duplicates.Several articles have been published recently on de-duplication methods.In the authors' opinion, these methods are either very time consuming [5] or impractical, as they require uploading large files to an online platform [6,7].A recent overview article compared existing software programs but found that none was truly satisfactory [8].Unique identifiers for journal articles are digital object identifiers (DOIs) and PubMed IDs (PMIDs).However, these identifiers are not present in every database.When they are present, they often cannot be exported easily.Thus, they cannot be relied upon to identify duplicates.An alternative involves using pagination, because the often large page numbers in scientific journals, in combination with other fields, can serve as a type of unique identifier.However, this is complicated by variations in the way page numbers are stored.Most biomedical databases use a long format (e.g.,
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper describes a detailed EndNote-based method for de-duplicating search results in systematic reviews, using page-number normalization and multiple field-comparison passes. The authors argue it is more systematic and reproducible than other approaches, with reduced manual checking and lower error rates, but it is tailored to EndNote and still fairly complex.
Key findings
- The method has three stages: change field/display settings, import records through a temporary library and adapted export/import filters, then run several duplicate-detection passes with different field settings and remove probable duplicates.
- The authors state that the time spent de-duplicating references and the error rate are “significantly reduced” because only a small subset of records needs manual assessment.
- The method relies on pagination because DOIs and PMIDs are not present in every database and often cannot be exported easily; the paper notes that most biomedical databases use long page-number formats (e.g., 1008-1012) while MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library use abbreviated formats (e.g., 1008-12).
- Table 1 lays out multiple duplicate-removal settings, including field combinations such as Author | Year | Title | Secondary (Journal) | Press, Delete, and other combinations involving Pages, Volume, and Issue.
Methods
- Design: A methods/tool article describing an EndNote workflow for de-duplication; the method was previously presented in a brief conference paper and is here described in detail for EndNote X7.
- Data/sample: Not an empirical sample; the paper discusses importing references from databases including PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library, and notes customized import filters for Embase.com, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Scopus.
- Main analysis: The workflow compares records across multiple field combinations in EndNote, after normalizing page-number formats via custom export/import filters, and uses repeated duplicate-finding steps plus manual checking of subsets to remove false duplicates.
Limitations
- The paper states the method is tuned to EndNote; it notes that Reference Manager was tried but “failed” because too many false duplicates were removed, and Reference Manager is no longer sold/support is likely discontinued.
- The paper says the method is “rather complicated” and has a “steep” learning curve. This is a limitation stated by the authors.
- Evident from the text: the method depends on databases exporting usable page numbers and journal-title formats, and the authors note that differences across databases and changes such as Cochrane’s switch to abbreviated page numbers and CINAHL’s page-length suffixes complicate the workflow.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
11 Own interpretation · 3 Sources not found · 2 No basis given · 1 Supported so far · 1 Own result
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“When conducting exhaustive searches for systematic reviews, information professionals search multiple databases with overlapping content [1-4].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1] 1. Levay P, Raynor M, Tuvey D. The contributions of MEDLINE, other bibliographic databases and various
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [2]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [3] 3. Lorenzetti DL, Topfer LA, Dennett L, Clement F. Value of databases other than MEDLINE for rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assessment Health Care. 2014;30(02):173-8. source
- Supportedcites [4] 4. Beyer FR, Wright K. Can we prioritise which databases to search? a case study using a systematic review of frozen shoulder management. Health Inf Libr J. 2013; 30(1):49-58. source
The Abstract says that comprehensive searches for systematic reviews use multiple databases and that searching and screening their results can be resource-intensive. The Comparison with previous work section describes substantial overlap in trials found across CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Together, these support the cited background statement. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, when we tried our method in Reference Manager, it failed: too many false duplicates were removed.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The only alternative software to EndNote in which the fields that are to be compared in the de-duplication process can be changed is Reference Manager, also provided by Thomson Reuters [14].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [14] 14. Reference Manager. Version 12. Thomson Reuters; 2008.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The limitation of this method is that it is tuned to EndNote”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Reference Manager allows comparisons by start pages.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [14] 14. Reference Manager. Version 12. Thomson Reuters; 2008.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, they cannot be relied upon to identify duplicates.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: DOIs and PMIDs are not present in every database.
- Rests on an assumption: When DOIs and PMIDs are present, they often cannot be exported easily.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 10
- It may state two separate claims as one. 5
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“however, in older versions, step 2 in the third column of rows C and D in Table 1 will not work as desired because duplicate references are not highlighted.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It will also work in earlier versions (versions X3 and higher)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If performed frequently, librarian-mediated de-duplication services can be faster than current methods and less error prone.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A recent overview article compared existing software programs but found that none was truly satisfactory [8].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [8]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, simplification of the method (e.g., by reducing the number of different field combinations or by not normalizing page numbers) increases the workload by increasing the number of references to manually assess.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The comparison of start page numbers in Reference Manager appears to be flawed; therefore, tailoring by our method for Reference Manager is not a good alternative.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The time spent de-duplicating references and the error rate are significantly reduced because just a small subset of the search results has to be assessed manually.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The last two steps require some additional manual assessment, but screening by page numbers expedites the work, and the number of references to assess is lower than in other methods.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A requisite of this method is that for efficient deduplication, page numbers should include both a start and an end page.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The method described in this paper is for the most recent version of EndNote for Windows, version X7.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The method's strength is based on the specificity of the first two steps, which require no manual assessment.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although this is not strictly necessary, it improves the sensitivity of the first step and, thus, reduces the number of references that have to be checked manually.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Information professionals typically remove duplicate records to reduce the reviewers' workload associated with screening titles and abstracts; sometimes the reviewers remove the duplicates.
“They typically remove duplicate records to reduce the reviewers' workload associated with screening titles and abstracts; sometimes the reviewers remove the duplicates.”
The paper relies on this without support.
DOIs and PMIDs are not present in every database.
“However, these identifiers are not present in every database.”
The paper relies on this without support.
When DOIs and PMIDs are present, they often cannot be exported easily.
“When they are present, they often cannot be exported easily.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Page numbers, in combination with other fields, can serve as a type of unique identifier.
“An alternative involves using pagination, because the often large page numbers in scientific journals, in combination with other fields, can serve as a type of unique identifier.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Variations in the way page numbers are stored complicate using pagination.
“However, this is complicated by variations in the way page numbers are stored.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most biomedical databases use a long page number format (e.g., 1008-1012).
“Most biomedical databases use a long format (e.g., 1008-1012)”
The paper relies on this without support.
MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library use an abbreviated page number format (e.g., 1008-12).
“two important databases (MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library) use an abbreviated one (e.g., 1008-12).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The de-duplication method designed for EndNote is more systematic, rigorous, and reproducible than procedures regularly carried out by other information professionals.
“Although the de-duplication method that we designed for EndNote resembles procedures regularly carried out by other information professionals, it is more systematic, rigorous, and reproducible.”
The paper relies on this without support.
EndNote is commonly used to manage bibliographic records.
“however, EndNote is commonly used to manage bibliographic records.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Reference Manager is no longer for sale, and support for Reference Manager will likely be discontinued.
“Additionally, Reference Manager is no longer for sale, and support for Reference Manager will likely be discontinued.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Databases differ in the format of the exported journal titles.
“Databases also differ in the format of the exported journal titles.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Some databases use abbreviations, while others provide full journal titles.
“Some databases use abbreviations, while others provide full journal titles.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cochrane recently switched from exporting full page numbers to abbreviated page numbers.
“Cochrane recently switched from exporting full page numbers to abbreviated page numbers”
The paper relies on this without support.
CINAHL recently appended the length of the article in the fields for page numbers (e.g., in the format 1008-1012 5p).
“CINAHL recently appended the length of the article in the fields for page numbers (e.g., in the format 1008-1012 5p).”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“When combined with human validation, adding import filters for various databases, following specific configurations in EndNote, and considering specific order of metadata import increases sensitivity [ 12 ]”
From Reducing systematic review burden using Deduklick: a novel, automated, reliable, and explainable deduplication algorithm to foster medical research (2022) · cites this paper as [12]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“When searching in multiple databases and additional information sources, as is necessary for a systematic review, authors often employ a variety of techniques to reduce the number of duplicates within their results prior to screening [135 -138].”
From PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews (2021) · cites this paper as [136]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Techniques vary in their efficacy, sensitivity, and specificity (Table 2) [136, 138].”
From PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews (2021) · cites this paper as [136]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The database has been cleared of duplicates using Endnote 21 through the de-duplication method detailed in Bramer et al. (2016).”
From Digital material passports in the AEC industry: a scoping review and conceptualisation of future research challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Bramer et al. (2016)
In the citing paper
“Duplicate articles were excluded by a medical information specialist (LS) using Endnote X20.4 (Clarivate™), following the Amsterdam Efficient Deduplication (AED) method and the Bramer-method (Bramer et al., 2016; Otten et al., 2019).”
From The pursuit for markers of disease progression in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia: a scoping review to optimize outcome measures for clinical trials (2024) · cites this paper as Bramer et al., 2016
Citations
Cites
Rathbone, J., Carter, M., Hoffmann, T., & Glasziou, P. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-6 · Cited by 206
Identifying and removing duplicate records from systematic review searches
Kwon, Y., Lemieux, M., McTavish, J., & Wathen, N. (2015) · Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · doi:10.3163/1536-5050.103.4.004 · Cited by 178 · cited 1×
“A recent overview article compared existing software programs but found that none was truly satisfactory [8].”
Find Duplicates among the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Databases in Systematic Review
Qi, X., Yang, M., Ren, W., Jia, J., Wang, J., Han, G., & Fan, D. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071838 · Cited by 98
Beyer, F. R., & Wright, K. (2013) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/hir.12009 · Cited by 47
Rule-based deduplication of article records from bibliographic databases
Jiang, Y., Lin, C., Meng, W., Yu, C., Cohen, A. M., & Smalheiser, N. R. (2014) · Database · doi:10.1093/database/bat086 · Cited by 41 · cited 1×
“In the authors’ opinion, these methods are either very time consuming [5] or impractical, as they require uploading large files to an online platform [6, 7].”
VALUE OF DATABASES OTHER THAN MEDLINE FOR RAPID HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS
Lorenzetti, D. L., Topfer, L.-A., Dennett, L., & Clement, F. (2014) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462314000166 · Cited by 30
Levay, P., Raynor, M., & Tuvey, D. (2015) · Evidence Based Library and Information Practice · doi:10.18438/b82p55 · Cited by 26
Information Retrieval in Telemedicine: a Comparative Study on Bibliographic Databases
Ahmadi, M., Sarabi, R. E., Orak, R. J., & Bahaadinbeigy, K. (2015) · Acta Informatica Medica · doi:10.5455/aim.2015.23.172-176 · Cited by 8
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- [2]2. search techniques to NICE public health guidance. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2015;10(1):50-68.
- [9]9. Bramer WM, Holland L, Mollema J, Hannon T, Bekhuis - T. Removing duplicates in retrieval sets from electronic databases: comparing the efficiency and accuracy of the Bramer-method with other methods and software packages. Proceedings of the 14th European Association for Health Information and Libraries (EAHIL) Conference, 57-9; Rome, Italy; 11-13 Jun 2014.
- [11]11. National Library of Medicine. PubMed [Internet]. The Library; 2016 [cited 4 Feb 2016]. , http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/ . .
- [12]12. Ovid MEDLINE [Internet]. Wolters Kluwer; 2016 [cited 4 Feb 2016]. , http://site.ovid.com/pdf/ OvidMedline\_fs.pdf . .
- [13]13. Cochrane. Cochrane Library [Internet]. John Wiley & Sons; 2016 [cited 4 Feb 2016]. , http://www. cochranelibrary.com . .
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 601–700 of 1,918
Boulton, A. J., Edwards, R., Gadie, A., Clayton, D., Leech, C., Smyth, M. A., Brown, T., & Yeung, J. (2024) · Resuscitation Plus · doi:10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100803 · Cited by 17
Cine-MRI for Quantifying Uterine Peristalsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Vidal, A., Bora, C., von Holzen, J., Gulz, M., Obmann, V., Pape, J., Karrer, T., Yilmaz, G., & von Wolff, M. (2025) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm14031021 · Cited by 13
“Duplicates were manually removed in EndNote [17].”
Workplace Violence Interventions Used by Home Healthcare Workers
Small, T. F., Gillespie, G. L., Kean, E. B., & Hutton, S. A. (2020) · Home Healthcare Now · doi:10.1097/nhh.0000000000000874 · Cited by 17
Patient, family and carer experiences of nutritional screening: a systematic review
Bullock, A. F., Greenley, S. L., Patterson, M., McKenzie, G. A. G., & Johnson, M. J. (2020) · Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics · doi:10.1111/jhn.12849 · Cited by 17
Treatment options in extra-articular distal radius fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Oijen, G. W. V., Lieshout, E. M. M. V., Reijnders, M. R. L., et al. (2021) · European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00068-021-01679-z · Cited by 17
“De-duplication of studies was performed as described before [13].”
MethodEvaluations of Continuing Health Provider Education Focused on Opioid Prescribing: A Scoping Review
Sud, A., Molska, G. R., & Salamanca‐Buentello, F. (2021) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000004186 · Cited by 19
Holzer, K. J., Bollepalli, H., Carron, J., Yaeger, L., Avidan, M. S., Lenze, E. J., & Abraham, J. (2024) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2024.08.110 · Cited by 18
Mertens, L., Kasmi, T., Bekkering, G. E., Hannes, K., Vermandere, M., Delvaux, N., Bostraeten, P. V., Jaeken, J., van der Weijden, T., Rademakers, J. J. D. J. M., et al. (2024) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2024.108475 · Cited by 18
Avella, P., Spiezia, S., Rotondo, M., et al. (2025) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers17050872 · Cited by 16
“The duplicated reports were managed according to the Bramer et al. method [36].”
Bostancı, N., Manoil, D., Holm, W. V., Belibasakis, G. N., & Teughels, W. (2025) · Journal Of Clinical Periodontology · doi:10.1111/jcpe.14183 · Cited by 18
Paes, V. M., Ting, A., Masters, J., et al. (2025) · Bone & Joint Open · doi:10.1302/2633-1462.67.bjo-2024-0243.r1 · Cited by 16
Herrington, G., Peterson, J., Cheng, L., Allington, B. M., Jensen, R. D., Healy, H. S., & Correia, M. (2022) · Obesity Science & Practice · doi:10.1002/osp4.589 · Cited by 16
“Database records were deduplicated in EndNote (10).”
Kullen, C. J., Mitchell, L., O'Connor, H. T., Gifford, J. A., & Beck, K. L. (2021) · Nutrition Reviews · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuab087 · Cited by 16
Park, B., Bhat, S., Wells, C. I., Barazanchi, A. W. H., Hill, A. G., & MacCormick, A. D. (2022) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.surg.2022.02.014 · Cited by 16
Lifetime direct healthcare costs of treating colorectal cancer: a systematic review
Bhimani, N., Wong, G. Y., Molloy, C., et al. (2022) · The European Journal of Health Economics · doi:10.1007/s10198-022-01497-z · Cited by 16
Patterson, M., Greenley, S. L., Ma, Y., et al. (2022) · BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care · doi:10.1136/bmjspcare-2021-003492 · Cited by 16
de Waardt, D. A., van Melle, A. L., Widdershoven, G. A. M., Bramer, W. M., van der Heijden, F. M. M. A., Rugkåsa, J., & Mulder, C. L. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1011961 · Cited by 17
Self-citationJonsson, U., Linton, S. J., Ybrandt, H., Ringborg, A., Leander, L., Moberg, K., Hultcrantz, M., & Arnberg, F. K. (2022) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2022.11.036 · Cited by 18
“The reference management program EndNote was used to deduplicate records from the literature search (Bramer et al., 2016; The EndNote Team, 2013).”
MethodHealth risks of titanium dioxide (TiO2) dust exposure in occupational settings – A scoping review
Hansa, J., Merzenich, H., Ortolano, L. C., Klug, S. J., Blettner, M., & Gianicolo, E. (2023) · International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health · doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2023.114212 · Cited by 17
Phanudulkitti, C., Puengrung, S., Meepong, R., Vanderboll, K., Farris, K. B., & Vordenberg, S. E. (2023) · Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social Pharmacy · doi:10.1016/j.rcsop.2023.100316 · Cited by 15
Jernelöv, S., & Blom, K. (2023) · Journal of Sleep Research · doi:10.1111/jsr.14024 · Cited by 18
“De-duplication was done using the method described by Bramer et al. (2016).”
MethodSchipper-Eindhoven, S. M., de Knegt, N. C., Mevissen, L., van Loon, J., de Vries, R., Zhuniq, M., & Bekker, M. H. J. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1328310 · Cited by 17
“0.1 (Clarivate ™ ), following the Amsterdam Efficient Deduplication (AED)-method (45) and the Bramer method (46).”
MethodInfluentialA systematic review of measures of healthcare workers’ vaccine confidence
Akinsola, K. O., Bakare, A. A., Gobbo, E., King, C., Hanson, C., Falade, A. G., & van Wees, S. H. (2024) · Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · doi:10.1080/21645515.2024.2322796 · Cited by 19
“After running the searches in all databases, a de-publication process was done using the method described by Bramer et al. 28 Finally, DOIs were compared to avoid duplicate articles.”
MethodConservative vs Surgical Treatment of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture: A Systematic Review
Papaleontiou, A., Poupard, A. M., Mahajan, U. D., et al. (2024) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.56532 · Cited by 16
“Results were combined, and duplicates were removed as per Bramer et al. using the EndNote database represented in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1 ) [12-14].”
MethodDefining and operationalizing personalized psychological treatment – a systematic literature review
Harnas, S. J., Knoop, H., Sprangers, M. A. G., & Braamse, A. M. J. (2024) · Cognitive Behaviour Therapy · doi:10.1080/16506073.2024.2333345 · Cited by 20
“The final search results were exported into EndNote, and duplicates were removed by the first author (SH) with a systematic de-duplication method (Bramer et al., 2016).”
The effectiveness of out-of-hours palliative care telephone advice lines: A rapid systematic review
Johansson, T., Chambers, R. L., Curtis, T. B., Pask, S., Greenley, S. L., Brittain, M., Bone, A. E., Laidlaw, L., Okamoto, I., Barclay, S. I. G., et al. (2024) · Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1177/02692163241248544 · Cited by 21
“Database results were downloaded into EndNote and duplicates were removed using a recognised method 28 before being uploaded into Covidence.”
MethodVoice as a Biomarker of Pediatric Health: A Scoping Review
Rogers, H. P., Hseu, A. F., Kim, J. W., Silberholz, E., Jo, S., Dorste, A., & Jenkins, K. J. (2024) · Children · doi:10.3390/children11060684 · Cited by 17
“All searches were run in May 2023 and de-duplicated in EndNote using the validated deduplication method put forth by Bramer et al. [8].”
MethodDelirium prevention and treatment in the emergency department (ED): a systematic review protocol
Dahlstrom, E., Han, J. H., Healy, H. S., Kennedy, M., Arendts, G., Lee, J. S., Carpenter, C. R., & Lee, S. (2020) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037915 · Cited by 17
Martella, A. M., Yatcilla, J., Martella, R. C., Marchand‐Martella, N. E., Ozen, Z., Karatas, T., Park, H. H., Simpson, A., & Karpicke, J. D. (2021) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654321991228 · Cited by 16
Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Philadelphia-Negative Myeloproliferative Neoplasms
Elsayed, B., Elshoeibi, A. M., Elhadary, M. R., Ferih, K., Elsabagh, A. A., Rahhal, A. A. A., Abu‐Tineh, M., Afana, M., Abdulgayoom, M., & Yassin, M. A. (2023) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics13061123 · Cited by 16
Greeven, A. P. A., Groningen, J. V., Schep, N. W. L., Lieshout, E. M. M. V., & Verhofstad, M. H. J. (2019) · Injury · doi:10.1016/j.injury.2019.06.027 · Cited by 16
PoSaw, L. L., Wubben, B. M., Bertucci, N., Bell, G., Healy, H. S., & Lee, S. (2021) · Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open · doi:10.1002/emp2.12439 · Cited by 16
“Reaction to educational experience: “satisfied,” “enjoyed” Self-report/opinion Adhikari,77 Amini31, Alkhalifah,30 Arntfield,33 Berg,35 Chenkin,42 Corujo,88 Girzadas,44 Grall,45 Greenstein,46 Grudziak,47 Leung,113 Liteplo,57 Lobo,58 Mallin,61 Noble,66 Salen,69 Sessler,69 Shah,70 Stolz,74 Stolz,132 Woo75 22 (20)”
Houchens, N., Engle, J. M., Palanjian, R., Saint, S., Townsend, W. A., Nasrallah, M., & Gupta, A. (2024) · Journal of general internal medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-024-08906-4 · Cited by 17
Diagnosing skin neglected tropical diseases with the aid of digital health tools: A scoping review
Barnowska, E. J., Fastenau, A., Penna, S., Bonkass, A.-K., Stuetzle, S., & Janssen, R. (2024) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000629 · Cited by 17
Gibson, C. J., Ajmera, M., O’Sullivan, F., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Women s Health · doi:10.2147/ijwh.s491640 · Cited by 15
“20,21 The formal search strategy was supplemented by a manual search of the bibliography of relevant systematic reviews and a grey literature search.”
Mertens, L., Vandenberghe, J. U., Bekkering, G. E., Hannes, K., Delvaux, N., Bostraeten, P. V., Jaeken, J., Aertgeerts, B., & Vermandere, M. (2025) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.70239 · Cited by 17
“We removed duplicates in Endnote (Version 20) using Bramer's de ‐ duplication procedure [28].”
Torvaldsson, K., Fagher, K., Derman, W. E., Engebretsen, L., Lindblom, H., Lópes, A. D., Runciman, P., Schwellnus, M. P., Soligard, T., Sonesson, S., et al. (2025) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2025-109980 · Cited by 26
“18 19 The process of screening, including and excluding articles, was conducted using Rayyan.”
Song, Y., Jin, D., Chen, J., Liang, W., & Liu, X. (2020) · Toxicological Sciences · doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfaa087 · Cited by 15
Franssen, W. M. A., Vanbrabant, E., Cuveele, E., Ivanova, A., Franssen, G. H. L. M., & Eijnde, B. O. (2021) · European Journal of Sport Science · doi:10.1080/17461391.2021.1955013 · Cited by 19
“Firstly, duplicates were removed using the de-duplication method from Bramer et al. (2016) and a first selection was performed based on titles and abstracts to identify relevant studies.”
Methodde Oliveira, R. C., Júnior, D. S. T., Filho, C. R. D. S., et al. (2021) · Research Society and Development · doi:10.33448/rsd-v10i14.21901 · Cited by 15
“The De-duplication (Bramer et al., 2016) method was used for EndNote, to exclude duplicated references more efficiently.”
MethodDonachie, K., Cornel, E., Pelgrim, T., Michielsen, L. J., Langenveld, B., Adriaansen, M., Bakker, E., & Lechner, L. (2022) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-022-06830-z · Cited by 16
Stake‐Nilsson, K., Almstedt, M., Fransson, G., et al. (2022) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-022-00904-3 · Cited by 15
“Duplicates were removed using Endnote and the de-duplication method suggested by Bramer, Giustini, de Jonge, Holland and Bekhuis [22].”
MethodEEG-based vibrotactile evoked brain-computer interfaces system: A systematic review
Huang, X., Liang, S., Li, Z., Lai, C. Y. Y., & Choi, K. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0269001 · Cited by 15
“The remaining 957 articles were duplicates and properly removed via an approach developed by Bramer, Giustini [44] and double-checked by manual inspection.”
MethodBremmers, L. G. M., Fabbricotti, I. N., Gräler, E. S., Groot, C. A. U., & Roijen, L. H. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270278 · Cited by 16
“First, all search hits were imported into Endnote X6, and duplicates were removed using a reproducible de-duplication method [36].”
MethodMotor control of the spine in pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain: A systematic review
Desgagnés, A., Patricio, P., Bérubé, N., et al. (2022) · Clinical Biomechanics · doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2022.105716 · Cited by 15
Füssenich, W., Seeber, G. H., Zwoferink, J. R., et al. (2023) · EFORT Open Reviews · doi:10.1530/eor-22-0134 · Cited by 15
Scoping review of dual-task interference in individuals with intellectual disability
Pineda, R. C., Krampe, R. T., Vanlandewijck, Y., & Biesen, D. V. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1223288 · Cited by 17
“Following the procedure outlined by Bramer et al. (2016), we used EndNote’s de-duplication feature to eliminate identical records.”
MethodHealth, safety, and socioeconomic impacts of cannabis liberalization laws: An evidence and gap map
Sevigny, E. L., Greathouse, J., & Medhin, D. N. (2023) · Campbell Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/cl2.1362 · Cited by 15
Siddiqui, N. Z., Wei, L., Mackenbach, J. D., de Pinho, M. G. M., Helbich, M., Schoonmade, L. J., & Beulens, J. W. J. (2024) · International Journal of Health Geographics · doi:10.1186/s12942-024-00362-x · Cited by 17
“0.1 (Clarivate ™ ), following the Bramer-method [34].”
InfluentialAutoimmune diseases and female-specific cancer risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Fischer, S., Meisinger, C., & Freuer, D. (2024) · Journal of Autoimmunity · doi:10.1016/j.jaut.2024.103187 · Cited by 15
Cost identification in health professions education: A scoping review
Yaros, J., de Mortier, C. A., Egbrink, M. G. A. O., Evers, S., & Paulus, A. T. G. (2024) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.15393 · Cited by 16
“30 Next, results were transferred into Rayyan 31 for title and abstract screening.”
Hinds, J. T., Zahra, A. G., Ruiz, R. A., Johnston, C. A., Sewell, K. B., & Lee, J. G. L. (2024) · LGBT Health · doi:10.1089/lgbt.2023.0309 · Cited by 16
“36 Using a combination of semi-automated deduplication in EndNote following the methods described by Bramer et al. 37 and the automated deduplication upon upload to Covidence, we removed 1878 duplicates.”
Stea, T. H., Bertelsen, T. B., Fegran, L., Sejersted, E., Kleppang, A. L., & Fyhn, T. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306285 · Cited by 21
“Subsequently, all hits from the searches were exported to EndNote 21 to eliminate the remaining duplicates before screening (ES) by comparing different field values in a stepwise process inspired by Bramer et al. [37].”
Approaches to reduce medical imaging departments’ environmental impact: A scoping review
Ghotra, S. S., Champendal, M., Flaction, L., et al. (2024) · Radiography · doi:10.1016/j.radi.2024.08.002 · Cited by 15
Ataman, R., Alhasani, R., Auneau-Enjalbert, L., Quigley, A., Michael, H. U., & Ahmed, S. (2024) · Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes · doi:10.1186/s41687-024-00743-7 · Cited by 17
L’Hotta, A. J., Varughese, T. E., Lyons, K. D., Simon, L. E., & King, A. A. (2020) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-020-05441-w · Cited by 15
Whitaker, K. M., Ryan, R., Becker, C., et al. (2021) · Journal of Women s Health · doi:10.1089/jwh.2021.0009 · Cited by 15
Pokhilenko, I., Janssen, L. M. M., Evers, S., Drost, R. M. W. A., Schnitzler, L., & Paulus, A. T. G. (2021) · PharmacoEconomics · doi:10.1007/s40273-021-01049-y · Cited by 15
Salloum, R. G., Rojewski, A. M., Piper, M. E., Blalock, J. A., Borrelli, B., Boyce, L. M., Minnix, J. A., Dogar, O. F., Tomko, R. L., Jorenby, D. E., et al. (2021) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntab140 · Cited by 15
Referencing Made Easy: Reference Management Softwares
Saxena, R., & Kaushik, J. S. (2021) · Indian Pediatrics · doi:10.1007/s13312-022-2478-5 · Cited by 15
“This complicates de-duplication and metadata retrieval by RMS [31].”
MethodRosenbloom, J. I., Yaeger, L., & Porat, S. (2021) · Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine · doi:10.1002/jum.15905 · Cited by 15
Bathen, T., Johansen, H., Strømme, H., & Velvin, G. (2022) · Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases · doi:10.1186/s13023-021-02169-6 · Cited by 15
“Results The searches resulted in a total of 19,273 hits, which were reduced to 9751 after deduplication [42].”
BackgroundPurushotham, S., Stephenson, R. S., Sanderson, A. J. R., Abichandani, D., Greig, C. A., Gardner, A. C., & Falla, D. (2022) · The Spine Journal · doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2022.01.023 · Cited by 15
Beauchemin, M., Dorritie, R., & Hershman, D. L. (2021) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-020-05980-2 · Cited by 15
Javadi, D., Sacks, E., Brizuela, V., Finlayson, K. W., Crossland, N., Langlois, É. V., Ziegler, D., Chandra‐Mouli, V., & Bonet, M. (2023) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2022-011560 · Cited by 15
“27 Records were collated into Covidence software where duplicates were removed, and records were screened based on title and abstract.”
Jooste, B. R., Kolivas, D., Brukner, P., & Moschonis, G. (2023) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu15204362 · Cited by 14
“Results were exported to Endnote version 20 [33], and 44 duplicates were removed based on the Bramer method of de-duplication [34].”
MethodFamily systems approaches in pediatric obesity management: a scoping review
Wills-Ibarra, N., Chemtob, K., Hart, H., Frati, F., Pratt, K. J., Ball, G. D. C., & Hulst, A. V. (2024) · BMC Pediatrics · doi:10.1186/s12887-024-04646-w · Cited by 14
“Duplicates across databases were removed in End-Note using a simplified method described by Bramer et al. [23] and additional duplicates were identified in Rayyan [24].”
Methodde Geus, C. J. C., Huysmans, M. A., van Rijssen, H. J., de Maaker‐Berkhof, M., Schoonmade, L. J., & Anema, J. R. (2024) · Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation · doi:10.1007/s10926-024-10203-0 · Cited by 15
“0.1 (Clarivate tm ), following the Amsterdam Efficient Deduplication (AED)-method [15, 16].”
InfluentialSheth, S. G., Machicado, J. D., Chhoda, A., Chalhoub, J. M., Forsmark, C. E., Zyromski, N. J., Sadeghirad, B., Morgan, R. L., Thosani, N. C., Thiruvengadam, N. R., et al. (2024) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2024.05.017 · Cited by 14
Mooiweer, Y., van den Akker‐Scheek, I., Stevens, M. J., & On behalf of the PAIR study group (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261784 · Cited by 14
Guth, J. J., Brophy, R. H., Matava, M. J., et al. (2022) · Arthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.asmr.2022.05.013 · Cited by 14
“Five-hundred fifty duplicate records were deleted after using the deduplication processes described in “De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote,” resulting in a total of 411 unique citations included in the project library.(18) Thirteen articles were ultimately included in the study…”
MethodAcademic-practice partnerships in evidence-based nursing practice: a scoping review protocol
Halili, X., Valimaki, M. A., Li, Z., Tang, S., Wang, H., & Chen, Q. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065049 · Cited by 14
Suicide Mortality Risk among Patients with Lung Cancer—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Hofmann, L., Heinrich, M., Baurecht, H., Langguth, B., Kreuzer, P. M., Knüttel, H., Leitzmann, M. F., & Seliger, C. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20054146 · Cited by 17
Inclan, P. M., Kuhn, A. W., Chang, P. S., Mack, C. D., Solomon, G. S., Sills, A. K., & Matava, M. J. (2023) · Sports Health A Multidisciplinary Approach · doi:10.1177/19417381231167333 · Cited by 14
Medication self-management interventions for persons with stroke: A scoping review
Cadel, L., Cimino, S. R., Bradley-Ridout, G., Hitzig, S. L., Patel, T., Ho, C., Packer, T. L., Lofters, A., Hahn‐Goldberg, S., McCarthy, L. M., et al. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0285483 · Cited by 19
“We followed Bramer’s method for deduplication using EndNote X8 [29].”
MethodPinedo-Torres, I. A., García-Villasante, E. J., Gutiérrez‐Ortiz, C., Quispe-Sarria, C., Morales-Pocco, K. O., Cedillo-Balcázar, J., Morán‐Mariños, C., & Baca-Carrasco, V. (2023) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.129970.1 · Cited by 16
Research on human rights and large-scale sport events from 1990 to 2022: a scoping review
Sant, S.-L., Maleske, C., & Vanderboll, K. (2023) · Sport Management Review · doi:10.1080/14413523.2023.2231315 · Cited by 16
“Duplicates were removed using EndNote X9 (by Clarivate Analytics) via a modified version of the Bramer method (Bramer et al., 2016).”
MethodAlamri, M. M., Antonoglou, G. N., Proctor, G., Balsa‐Castro, C., Tomás, I., & Nibali, L. (2023) · Clinical Oral Investigations · doi:10.1007/s00784-023-05169-x · Cited by 16
Villacampa, G. J., Papakonstantinou, A., Fredriksson, I., et al. (2023) · The Oncologist · doi:10.1093/oncolo/oyad266 · Cited by 14
“De-duplication was done using the method described by Bramer et al. 19 One final, extra step was added to compare DOIs.”
MethodClinical decision support systems in community pharmacies: a scoping review
Moon, J., Chladek, J. S., Wilson, P., & Chui, M. A. (2023) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocad208 · Cited by 17
Natalia, Y. A., Delporte, M., Witte, D. D., et al. (2023) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-023-17203-4 · Cited by 14
“1), which we further reduced to 4,693 after removing duplicates as described by Bramer et al. [13].”
Ernst, M., Schwinn, T., Hirschmiller, J., Cleare, S., Robb, K. A., Brähler, E., Zwerenz, R., Wiltink, J., O’Connor, R. C., & Beutel, M. E. (2024) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102413 · Cited by 17
“We removed duplicate records following the steps outlined by Bramer et al. (2016).”
Hyde, E. K., Monnin, C., Gregora, A., Smith, K., Schultz, A. S. H., O’Keefe-McCarthy, S., Arora, R. C., Duhamel, T. A., & Chudyk, A. M. (2024) · Intensive and Critical Care Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.iccn.2024.103718 · Cited by 14
Batista, D. R. O., Silva, K. V. C., Torres, M. M., da Costa, W. P., Monfort-Pañego, M., Noll, P. R. E. S., & Noll, M. A. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0319533 · Cited by 19
“Duplicates will be removed following Bramer’s method [26], and a manual review will be conducted to confirm their exclusion [20,27].”
Antimicrobial resistance in a protracted war setting: a review of the literature from Palestine
Kumar, R., Tanous, O., Mills, D. E., et al. (2025) · mSystems · doi:10.1128/msystems.01679-24 · Cited by 14
“Duplicate records were removed using the validated EndNote deduplication method by Bramer et al. (62).”
McGilton, K. S., Vellani, S., Babineau, J., Bethell, J., Bronskill, S. E., Burr, E., Keatings, M., McElhaney, J. E., McKay, S. M., Nichol, K. A., et al. (2019) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032149 · Cited by 13
Off-label Studies on the Use of Ruxolitinib in Dermatology
Tegtmeyer, K., Ravi, M. S., Zhao, J. W., et al. (2021) · Dermatitis · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000658 · Cited by 14
Klippenstein, A. W., Piotrowski, C. C., Winkler, J., & West, C. (2021) · Journal of Child Health Care · doi:10.1177/13674935211043680 · Cited by 14
“3.3 (Clarivate Analytics), where they were deduplicated using a simplified version of the method described by Bramer et al. (2016).”
MethodInfluentialHealthcare professional disclosure of mental illness in the workplace: a rapid scoping review
Hudson, É., Arnaert, A., & Lavoie‐Tremblay, M. (2021) · Journal of Mental Health · doi:10.1080/09638237.2021.1979485 · Cited by 17
“589 duplicates were removed using the Bramer et al. (2016) method.”
Curley, D. E., Vasaturo-Kolodner, T. R., Cannella, N., Ciccocioppo, R., & Haass‐Koffler, C. L. (2022) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/s41386-022-01363-9 · Cited by 15
“3 (Clarivate Analytics), and duplicates were removed [30].”
BackgroundErnst, I. G., Torbahn, G., Schwingshackl, L., Knüttel, H., Kob, R., KEMMLER, W. K., Sieber, C. C., Batsis, J. A., Villareal, D. T., Stroebele‐Benschop, N., et al. (2022) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/obr.13497 · Cited by 15
“followed by a duplicate check in Covidence.(25) Results from ClinicalTrials.”
BackgroundSchnitzler, L., Jackson, L. J., Paulus, A. T. G., et al. (2021) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-021-07147-z · Cited by 14
“Citations were systematically de-duplicated following the guidelines by Bramer and colleagues [21].”
MethodWeiss, C., Vogels, S., Wee, L., Janssen, L., de Bie, R. A., & Scheltinga, M. R. (2022) · The Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery · doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2022.02.011 · Cited by 13
Strategies to Increase Access to Outpatient Physiotherapy Services: A Scoping Review
Crawford, T., Parsons, J. L., Webber, S. C., Fricke, M., & Thille, P. (2022) · Physiotherapy Canada · doi:10.3138/ptc-2020-0119 · Cited by 14
Zavala, G. A., Todowede, O. O., Mazumdar, P., Aslam, F., Choudhury, A. H., Jarde, A., Khalid, H., Reddy, S., Gilbody, S. M., & Siddiqi, N. (2022) · Cambridge Prisms Global Mental Health · doi:10.1017/gmh.2022.21 · Cited by 12
“The results of the database and citation tracking reference searches were stored and de-duplicated in an EndNote library (Bramer et al., 2016).”
BackgroundBuilding consensus in research partnerships: a scoping review of consensus methods
Cary, M. A., Plamondon, K., Banner, D., Oelke, N. D., Sibley, K. M., Baxter, K., Vis‐Dunbar, M., Hoens, A. M., Wick, U., Bigsby, S., et al. (2022) · Evidence & Policy · doi:10.1332/174426421x16645354235140 · Cited by 15
Ouellet, S., Gallani, M. C. B. J., Gélinas, C., Fontaine, G., Archambault, P. M., Mercier, É., Severino, F., & Berube, M. (2022) · Nursing Open · doi:10.1002/nop2.1550 · Cited by 18
The Impact of Dental Care Programs on Individuals and Their Families: A Scoping Review
Ghoneim, A., D’Souza, V., Ahmady, A. E., Parbhakar, K. K., He, H., Gerbig, M., Laporte, A., Hancock, R., Gomaa, N. A., Quiñonez, C., et al. (2023) · Dentistry Journal · doi:10.3390/dj11020033 · Cited by 16
Pijpers, A. G. H., Schattenkerk, L. D. E., de Vries, R., Broers, C. J. M., Straver, B., van Heurn, E. L. W., Musters, G. D., Gorter, R. R., & Derikx, J. P. M. (2023) · Pediatric Surgery International · doi:10.1007/s00383-023-05449-3 · Cited by 13
“1 (Clarivatetm), following the Amsterdam Efficient Deduplication (AED) method and the Bramer method [7].”
MethodLisik, D., Ermiş, S. S. Ö., Ioannidou, A., Milani, G. P., Nyassi, S., Spolidoro, G. C. I., Kankaanranta, H., Goksör, E., Wennergren, G., & Nwaru, B. I. (2023) · Clinical and Translational Allergy · doi:10.1002/clt2.12270 · Cited by 13
“EndNote X9 (Clarivate Analytics, 2020) was used to host‐retrieved records and perform de‐duplication, following a semi‐automated method proposed by Bramer et al.(35) Pairs of reviewers independently screened records following a two‐step approach, based on (1) title and abstract, and (2) full‐text of potentially releva…”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D., de Jonge, G. B., Holland, L., & Bekhuis, T.
- Affiliations
- Erasmus MC (NL)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Southern College of Optometry (US)
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Venue
- Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA
- Published
- 2016-07
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 240-243
- ISSN
- 1536-5050 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-9439
- PMC
- PMC4915647
- OpenAlex
- W2471940872
- Cited by
- 2,103
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 346 · 2025: 333 · 2024: 419 · 2023: 340 · 2022: 252 · 2021: 218 · 2020: 113 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 5.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Quality and Management
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Keywords
- data deduplication, duplicate records, database search results, systematic reviews, EndNote, information professionals, bibliographic databases
- MeSH terms
- Review Literature as Topic, Databases, Bibliographic, Information Storage and Retrieval
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
